First of all, let me put it this way. This is a statement I have made on the same forum a few times in the previous decade I have been a member here.

For person A, they have a certain set of experiences, education, knowledge and inclination and all they do is to gather information so as to support what they believe, the same is true for person B and C and D as well. They could be a scientist, they could be a philosopher, they could be a rock star....... on a personal level we all do gather information to support what we believe is to be true.

A very true and excellent point Moon. This effect is called "confirmation bias" and everybody is subject to it. It is one of those powerful hidden persueders that makes the scientific method so useful in correctly interpreting what we see around us.

Here we can see that things went off the rails when Canis opted to "choose" the only portion he believes from my original post, and ironically changed the entire meaning of my post. There is NO mentioned of a phenomenon that can "never" be studied, all it means is that with the current limitations of science, there are phenomena that are difficult (if not impossible) to explain.

I really have no idea what you are talking about here. If you are saying I derailed this thread, I do not think that is fair. This thread is full of people insulting each other and indulging in low tactics like name calling. I simply asked a question about your post. I thought I asked it in a polite & friendly way. I was certainly not trying to change the meaning of your post, and I apologize if it seemed that way.

For the record, I niether believed or disbelieved the portion of your post I quoted. It simple grabbed my atrention as an interesting concept. I thought it would make for a good discussion. Like I said, I can not think of something that fit what was being said, but I am certainly open to the possibility. At this point, I assume that no one has any tangible examples of this, and since even you have disagreed with it, I guess I have my answer.

Regards, Canis

Edited by Caniswalensis, 08 April 2010 - 09:51 AM.

"It is proper for you to doubt ... do not go upon report ... do not go upon tradition ... do not go upon hear-say." ~ Buddha

Since you state there are things that can't be explained or studied within the framework of science then it ends up being magic, again.

Whatever name we call it, it is still "unexplained". And just because it is unexplained doesn't mean it cannot be explained, it merely means we have NOT YET reached a point to describe them.

I really have no idea what you are talking about here. If you are saying I derailed this thread, I do not think that is fair. This thread is full of people insulting each other and indulging in low tactics like name calling. I simply asked a question about your post. I thought I asked it in a polite & friendly way. I was certainly not trying to change the meaning of your post, and I apologize if it seemed that way.

For the record, I niether believed or disbelieved the portion of your post I quoted. It simple grabbed my atrention as an interesting concept. I thought it would make for a good discussion. Like I said, I can not think of something that fit what was being said, but I am certainly open to the possibility. At this point, I assume that no one has any tangible examples of this, and since even you have disagreed with it, I guess I have my answer.

Regards, Canis

I never mentioned YOU derailed the thread, but your quoting just a portion of a complete sentence wasn't doing justice to what was actually being told.

As for the answer that you have Canis, most of the answers come to us when what we seek is clear enough. Good work.

Moreover, please do not consider I to be a person who is a "blind believer" neither am I a "blind sceptic". All I am trying to say is that many of the phenomena that we are seeking answers for, are not going to explaied WITHIN THE CURRENT LEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING that science today have.

Since you state there are things that can't be explained or studied within the framework of science then it ends up being magic, again.

Whatever name we call it, it is still "unexplained". And just because it is unexplained doesn't mean it cannot be explained, it merely means we have NOT YET reached a point to describe them.

I really have no idea what you are talking about here. If you are saying I derailed this thread, I do not think that is fair. This thread is full of people insulting each other and indulging in low tactics like name calling. I simply asked a question about your post. I thought I asked it in a polite & friendly way. I was certainly not trying to change the meaning of your post, and I apologize if it seemed that way.

For the record, I niether believed or disbelieved the portion of your post I quoted. It simple grabbed my atrention as an interesting concept. I thought it would make for a good discussion. Like I said, I can not think of something that fit what was being said, but I am certainly open to the possibility. At this point, I assume that no one has any tangible examples of this, and since even you have disagreed with it, I guess I have my answer.

Regards, Canis

I never mentioned YOU derailed the thread, but your quoting just a portion of a complete sentence wasn't doing justice to what was actually being told.

As for the answer that you have Canis, most of the answers come to us when what we seek is clear enough. Good work.

Moreover, please do not consider I to be a person who is a "blind believer" neither am I a "blind sceptic". All I am trying to say is that many of the phenomena that we are seeking answers for, are not going to explaied WITHIN THE CURRENT LEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING that science today have.

Well, I was just asking. When you said: " Here we can see that things went off the rails when Canis opted to "choose" the only portion he believes from my original post, and ironically changed the entire meaning of my post." it sounded to me like you werew saying I had derailed the thread.

You bring up another point that I am in total agrrement with, which is that almost every person is part believer and part skeptic. the only difference is in the proportions.

To be honest, I do not really like to use the word skeptic to describe someone's opinion or position on any given issue. I do so often, mostly out of laziness. To me, skepticism is more of a methodology than an outlook. We all employ it to one extent or another. It is the art of thinking critically. If employed well, it is of great help in making wise and informed decisions on almost any subject. The evidence for its effectivness this comes when it is used in regards to things that can be measured and repeated.

So I guess my answer to the original posters question goes something like this. Can you change a skeptic's mind? Yes! Being prepared to have your mind changed is at the heart of being a true skeptic.

What would it take to convince me of the existence of something paranormal? The same thing it would take to convince me of the existence of anything else. Objective evidence. One piece. That's all.

Regards, Canis

"It is proper for you to doubt ... do not go upon report ... do not go upon tradition ... do not go upon hear-say." ~ Buddha

Take a skeptic( well know if possible) to a well known and very real haunted location and let them experience things on a first hand basis and see what they have to say. Most likely something like this, Uh, uh, uh......

Why would anyone want to change a skeptics mind anyway?, LOL who cares what the unenlightened think we know they exist don't we!

Interests:Serious Research and separating the truth from the hype in the paranormal field today.

Posted 11 April 2010 - 10:25 AM

Why would anyone want to change a skeptics mind anyway?, LOL who cares what the unenlightened think we know they exist don't we!

Fine.

You can show me a rock.you can show me a tree.You can even speak and prove the existence of sound waves though they are invisible.I can touch an electical wire and receive a shock from invisible energy.

But how about show me a ghost.Or even the effects of one's presence....

If "proof" was provided the criteria for that which was predefined as"proof" would be altered, those that proffer the "proof" in the clinical environment would be personally scrutinized, their methodology would be criticized as flawed and the collected data would somehow have been tainted.

my quest ISshould we care if the unenlightened refuse to accept that which the awakened (evolved)

real psychics seldom discuss it or run around forums telling how just psychic they are btw

If "proof" was provided the criteria for that which was predefined as"proof" would be altered, those that proffer the "proof" in the clinical environment would be personally scrutinized, their methodology would be criticized as flawed and the collected data would somehow have been tainted.

my quest ISshould we care if the unenlightened refuse to accept that which the awakened (evolved)

real psychics seldom discuss it or run around forums telling how just psychic they are btw

Evolved is that what you think of yourself. Do you put your pants on one leg at a time ? I bet you do-yeah you are evolved about as much as the rest of us.

If "proof" was provided the criteria for that which was predefined as"proof" would be altered, those that proffer the "proof" in the clinical environment would be personally scrutinized, their methodology would be criticized as flawed and the collected data would somehow have been tainted.

my quest ISshould we care if the unenlightened refuse to accept that which the awakened (evolved)

real psychics seldom discuss it or run around forums telling how just psychic they are btw

I don't know if I'd say you were whining, but you certainly said nothing to answer my question.

Seriously, on what belief or faith do you base this knowledge you profess to possess?

If "proof" was provided the criteria for that which was predefined as"proof" would be altered, those that proffer the "proof" in the clinical environment would be personally scrutinized, their methodology would be criticized as flawed and the collected data would somehow have been tainted.

my quest ISshould we care if the unenlightened refuse to accept that which the awakened (evolved)

real psychics seldom discuss it or run around forums telling how just psychic they are btw

Evolved is that what you think of yourself. Do you put your pants on one leg at a time ? I bet you do-yeah you are evolved about as much as the rest of us.

I love this rebuttal of yours it's nothing more than whining. What you're are really saying is this. By offering this excuse as a reason not to provide proofs of your powers you can never to be proven that you don't have them, thereby continuing on your merry way believing you do. Now that's what you're real concern is too maintain what is mostly likely self delusion.

Firstly I must Thank, “PhenomInvestigator”, in post #63 of this thread, he mentions the Society for Scientific Exploration,(SSE). What is SSE? That’s what I asked:

The Society for Scientific Exploration (SSE) is a leading professional organization of scientists and scholars who study unusual and unexplained phenomena. Subjects often cross mainstream boundaries, such as consciousness, ufos, and alternative medicine, yet often have profound implications for human knowledge and technology.We publish a peer-reviewed journal, host annual meetings, and engage in public outreach. While our Full members are professional or experienced scientists and scholars, Associate and Student memberships are available to everyone. Consequently, we have a diverse and active membership, who promote critical thinking and rigorous—yet open-minded—scientific exploration.(Copy and Pasted from their site: http://www.scientifi...about_sse.html)

Over the past week I have spent hours studying and investigating this group and it’s members, they are the “Real Deal”, I have recently started correspondence with the Editor of their Journal, I am about to join their organization.

In my opinion, This group represents the Most Scientific approach to Unexplained Phenomena. SSE has research articles for review, many of the titles are very interesting:1. A Brief History of the Society for Scientific Exploration2. What Do We Mean by "Scientific?"3. Commonalities in Arguments Over Anomalies4. Applied Scientific Inference5. The Critical Role of Analytical Science in the Study of Anomalies6. Illegitimate Science? A Personal Story7. Science of the Subjective8. What Has Science Come to?9. Failure to Replicate Electronic Voice Phenomenon10. Anomalies and Surprises11. Can Physics Accommodate Clairvoyance, Precognition, and Psychokinesis?12. Arguing for an Observational Theory of Paranormal Phenomena13. Parapsychology: Science or Pseudo-Science?14. Sensors, Filters, and the Source of Reality15. Ockham’s Razor and Its Improper Use16. The Role of Anomalies in Scientific Exploration17. How to Reject Any Scientific Manuscript18. Organized Skepticism Revisited